All religious beliefs prompt rejection. Souls are reincarnated? Ridiculous. The Bible is divinely inspired? Dangerous nonsense. Muhammad is the prophet of God? Poppycock. Jesus rose from the dead? Absurd. It is the common fate of doctrines to be dismissed; you’d almost think that’s what they were made for.
Alan Jacobs, Original Sin: A Cultural History, p. ix.
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.
Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).
With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings.
…
[A]nother provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.
That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.
“President Apostate?” by Edward N. Luttwak.
Is theology theoretical or practical? This distinction between contemplation (theory) and action (practice) goes back to Aristotle, who placed the highest value on contemplation. Luther rejected both categories and placed theology in a new category: the receptive (passive) life. Faith and theology are not part of the active life of contemplation or action, but are “connected with a particular experience: an experience that I do not primarily produce but suffer or undergo: ‘It is by living – no, not living, but by dying and giving ourselves up to hell that we become theologians, not by understanding, reading, and speculating’” (Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, p. 23). Theology, then, is neither theoretical nor practical; theology is the experience of the receptive life of faith. Luther does not make a distinction between faith and theology. In fact, in the Heidelberg Disputation he distinguishes not between a theology of the cross and a theology of glory, but between the theologian of the cross and the theologian of glory. A true theologian suffers or undergoes the working of God and his theology flows from that experience.
The receptive life is the negation of the justifying doing of morality and the justifying thinking of metaphysics. They are undone by the cross. Morality says that if you do good, good things will happen to you - yet here is Jesus the perfect dying for no sin of his own. Metaphysics investigates the True, the Good, and the Beautiful - yet here is God revealed in weakness on the cross. “He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.”
This passive life, however, does not lead to quietism or inertia:
If I finally pin myself down and judge myself on the basis of what I have done and do, and if I let myself be pinned won by others, by their looks, their words, and their behavior, I am no longer free. But if I am liberated from this captivity, from my own absolute claims and from those of others, then this gift of freedom brings with it a sense of perspective that enables me to distinguish between person and work. This means freedom for human action, which is always finite action, for the illusion that my works can be perfect and the desire to be free of limits must die. (Bayer, p. 25)
Luther’s rejection of the active or contemplative life in theological terms does not mean he advocated sitting around waiting for God to change the world. The passive or receptive life relates to our justification before God, not our love for our neighbors. Ironically enough, the passive life of faith can truly free us to live an active life of love in the world.
So John Hagee has apologized to Catholics for “any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.” (See the letter here [pdf].) He has been criticized by the perpetually-offended Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for calling the Catholic Church the “great whore,” among other things. I have my doubts about this apology. It is extremely common in fundamentalist dispensationalism to interpret the great whore text of Revelation 17 as a prophecy of a one-world religion centered in Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. For that matter, it’s fairly common (historically speaking) among those who aren’t dispensationalists to interpret it that way. Drunk on the blood of the saints? Sitting on seven mountains? It seems pretty clear to me that this is indeed a reference to Rome, but to the Roman emperors, not the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I wonder if Hagee is really breaking with this tradition or if he has simply gotten pressure to fix McCain’s pastor problem.
And I can just hear all the fundies out there giving this as further evidence that Hagee has abandoned the true faith - that he isn’t extreme enough.
It is a particular use of words and language that makes the subject of theology genuine theology. God and humans are connected in the word: in the word of the confession of sins and in the word of forgiveness. … This is how we speak when we pray: We confess that God is right; we ascribe righteousness to him, we attribute it to him. … This communicative relationship between God and humans is by no means self-evident. The amazing thing is clear from the contrast: rather than speaking about the association between God and humans, Luther speaks of the dissociation or disconnection between them. God and humans are fatally separated. Yet in this separation, “the naked God is there with humans in their nakedness” (nudus deus da cum nudo homine). However, the “naked God” (nudus deus) is God “in his absolute majesty” (in sua absoluta maiestate), the “absolute God” (Deus absolutus). But we can have nothing to “do” with that God, we cannot “handle” him, we cannot “deal” with him, we cannot “speak” to him, and we cannot believe in him. Yet this disconnection does not give us naked humans (nudus homo) any breathing space, for we experience the naked God (nudus deus) as our enemy. Thus the verbal exchange between sinful humans and the God who justifies begins as a contest (certamen) to see who will be proved right. This kind of verbal exchange is no simple correlation between our knowledge of God and the knowledge we have of ourselves. To start with, we are not even sure who our opponent is. Is it God or the devil? Did Jacob in his struggle that night at the Jabbok wrestle with a demon or with Yahweh? We only know for certain whether God or the devil is our opponent from the word and its implicit Christology.
The communicative relationship between God and humans that is salvific and not destructive is grounded in the word and takes the form of an exchange of words (in sermonibus tuis). When Luther emphasizes that “Christ is present” in this word, he is defining the mediation more precisely. Christology explicates who is connected, the basis of the connection, and the medium of this connection. To put it more precisely, it identifies who is active and who is passive, who comes and who is brought, who makes the connection and who is connected. The three “offices” of Christ are nothing else than the three interrelated aspects of the one office of mediator (munus triplex). The prophetic office especially is the means of mediation (the word), the priestly office shows us who is mediated (God and humans), and the royal office is the power of mediation: Christ’s victory over hell, death, and devil. The saving communicative relationship between God and humans is an exchange of words. This is no harmless self-evident correlation and correspondence, but the felicitous outcome of a life-and-death struggle that is not at all self-evident.
Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, pp. 18-19.
Three or four years ago a robin built a nest on the top of one of our porch posts. Every year since then (maybe one exception) a robin has returned and reused that nest. It’s been a joy to watch that annual cycle every Spring right outside our front door.
Unfortunately, a couple of weeks ago there was a massacre on our front porch. Something (we suspect a raccoon) ate both the five baby robins and a bluebird with her eggs in a bird box on the other end of the porch. It was a gory mess out there. My wife was really upset.
So we were both thrilled and apprehensive when another robin moved back into that same nest a week or so later. We decided to take some precautionary measures this time. We jerry-rigged a cage that would allow the robin in but hopefully keep the raccoons out. It is a truly redneck contraption. Hopefully it works, though.
Ben Meyers, who began the one book meme a couple of years ago, has now unleashed the one movie meme. Here are my answers.
1. One movie that made you laugh
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.
2. One movie that made you cry
Fiddler on the Roof.
3. One movie you loved when you were a child
Karate Kid.
4. One movie you’ve seen more than once
BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (1995).
5. One movie you loved, but were embarrassed to admit it
Two Weeks Notice.
6. One movie you hated
Sin City.
7. One movie that scared you
The Ring.
8. One movie that bored you
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
9. One movie that made you happy
Casablanca.
10. One movie that made you miserable
Dirty Pretty Things. (It’s a brilliant film, but the subject matter is seriously depressing.)
11. One movie you weren’t brave enough to see
Nightmare on Elm Street.
12. One movie character you’ve fallen in love with
Lauren Bacall as Vivian Rutledge in The Big Sleep.
13. The last movie you saw
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
14. The next movie you hope to see
There Will Be Blood.
15. Now tag five people.
I’m not sure if I have five readers, so anyone who reads this is welcome to do it. Leave your answers or links to your answers in the comments.
It is no accident that we find Luther’s answer to Biel’s second question regarding the “subject matter of theology” in his interpretation of Psalm 51, which was traditionally numbered among the penitential psalms. This psalm has a particular significance for Luther’s theology. The words of the psalm compel us to speak of sin and grace. Theology can have no other theme. (Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, p. 17)
I balked when I first read these words. Bayer is saying that for Luther the subject matter of theology is “the God who justifies and the sinful human.” Blame it on N.T. Wright: my first reaction was that this was a merely individualistic theology that didn’t take into account the entirety of God’s purposes. I finished Wright’s Surprised By Hope only a few days ago and I was really taken by his more cosmic view of redemption and the implications this has for us in our everyday lives. While this broader view of salvation is certainly not new I think it has gained renewed emphasis for several reasons, e.g., the awareness brought about by ecological concern, the individualism of evangelicalism, and the bunker mentality of rapture theology. Obviously I think this renewed emphasis is a good thing. My enthusiasm for it, though, almost made me miss something important in what Bayer is saying.
After reading the section twice the following passage finally opened up for me:
It is a particular use of words and language that makes the subject of theology genuine theology. God and humans are connected in the word: in the word of the confession of sins and in the word of forgiveness. Luther’s definition is framed in the third person: “The subject of theology is the sinful and lost human being and the justifying or saving God.” However, this definition is derivative. It can easily be traced back to sentences in the first and second person, sentences of address and response. These original sentences, which form the irreducible basis of all dogmatic statements, are sentences of divine address and human response, sentences of prayer as well as sentences of confession and doxology in which God is glorified, as in the judgment doxology of Psalm 51:4: “Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your words, and blameless when you are judged.” (Bayer, p. 18, emphasis added)
What unlocked this for me was when I realized that we truly experience the Christian faith by hearing the word of absolution and receiving it in faith. Our Christian lives begin when we are addressed by God in this way, in the first person. Immediately I remembered the first two sentences of Ben Myers’ “Theology for Beginners” series: “As followers of Jesus Christ, we find ourselves in the situation of faith: we find that we believe.” Finding ourselves in the situation of faith, we try to understand what we have experienced. Only after that initial (and continual, for that matter) “verbal exchange between the sinful human and the God who justifies” can we find that we are not the entirety of God’s plan - but it has to start somewhere.
